WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/722 
5 September 2006 
 (06-4214) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ISSUES ARISING FROM  
THE SECOND REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Committee) adopted the 
report of the second Review of the Operati on and Implementation of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary M easures on 30 June 2005 (G/SPS/36).  This report 
identifies several issues where Members have proposed further work by the SPS Committee and 
contains a number of recommendations.  The Committee agreed that it would address these issues based on proposals and specific submissions from Members.  This document compiles the submissions by Members relating to matters for fu rther work following the adoption of the report of 
the Review up until August 2006.  Other issues raised  in the context of the Review will be addressed 
when Members submit specific proposals or request  specific consideration of proposals submitted 
during the Review process. 
2. The documents submitted by Members address th e following subjects: implementation of the 
transparency provisions and clarification of terms us ed in that context;  the relationship between the 
SPS Committee and the international standard- setting bodies (ISSBs);  undue delays;  and 
consultations under Article 21.1, use of good offices a nd resolution of trade concerns.  Section II lists 
the documents received for each subject and briefly summarizes them. 
II. DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS 
A. 
TRANSPARENCY / CLARIFICATION OF TERMS  
Date Member Title/Subject Symbol 
June 2006 Australia, New 
Zealand, United 
States Review of the Implementation of Transparency 
Provisions G/SPS/W/197 
March 
2006 Canada Clarification of the Terms "Measures" and 
"Regulations" as contained in the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/186 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/GEN/722 
Page 2  
 
  3. Australia, New Zealand and the United States  suggest that the Committee discuss how to 
ensure that all Members have operational enquiry po ints working to further the full implementation of 
the Agreement.  Furthermore, the three proponents note that various Members have identified specific 
issues related to the implementation of the transp arency provisions that could be addressed by the 
Committee.  In addition, they suggest that Members could use the Handbook on Transparency to 
analyze their own implementation of the SPS Agreem ent.  Other potential areas of work identified 
include evaluating the notification obligations, incl uding the notification of special and differential 
treatment and of regionalization.  According to th e proponents, a thorough review of the transparency 
obligations and of their implementation woul d improve mutual understanding of Members' 
administrative procedures and allow the Committee to better evaluate the need for additional work on 
undue delays and timelines. 
4. Canada  notes that while the Preamble, Articles 1 (General Provisions) and 7 (Transparency) 
and Annex A (Definitions) of the SPS Agreemen t all use the term "measures", Annex B 
(Transparency of Sanitary and Ph ytosanitary Regulations) uses the term "regulations", defined in a 
footnote as "[s]anitary and phytosanitary measure s such as laws, decrees or ordinances which are 
applicable generally".  Although a footnote in  the Recommended Procedures for Implementing the 
Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.2) indicates that the SPS Agreement 
uses the two terms somewhat interchangeably, in Canada 's view the use of different terms can lead to 
uncertainty, and possibly to a failure to notify certain measures that are not considered regulations.  In  
Japan – Agricultural Products II  the Appellate Body ruled that: 
"... [t]he scope of application of the publication requirement is not 
limited to 'laws, decrees or ordi nances', but also includes, in our 
opinion, other instruments which are applicable generally and are similar in character to the instruments explicitly referred to in the illustrative list of the footnote to paragraph 1 of Annex B."
2 
5. Canada proposes clarifying the issue throug h a Committee decision recognizing that, when 
referring to "regulations" in Annex B, the intent of  the SPS Agreement is to include all measures that 
are applicable generally and may have a significant effect on trade of other Members. 
B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SPS COMMITTEE AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARD -SETTING 
BODIES  
Date Member Title/Subject Symbol 
January 
2006 Brazil Prioritization of Issues for the Future Work 
Programme of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/182 
June 2006 Chile Harmonization, Relations with International 
Organizations (OIE; IPPC, Codex 
Alimentarius), Monitoring of International Standards G/SPS/W/203 
March 
2006 Colombia Priority Topics to be Taken into Account in the 
Future Work of the Committee G/SPS/W/188 
November 
2005 New Zealand Work Programme  G/SPS/W/179 
June 2006 New Zealand Relationshi p between the SPS Committee and 
the Standard-Setting Bodies G/SPS/W/206 
                                                      
2 Appellate Body Report on Japan – Agricultural Products II , paras. 105-107.   G/SPS/GEN/722 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. Brazil  considers of high importance that the Co mmittee continue to discuss its relationship 
with the relevant International Standard-Setti ng Bodies (ISSBs).  In Brazil's view, improving 
cooperation with these bodies as the international refe rence of technical and scientific matters would 
be beneficial to the implementation of the SPS Ag reement, especially with regard to harmonization 
with international standards.  The Committee should take into account the distinct roles and objectives 
of the ISSBs and of the SPS Agreement. 
7. Chile  notes that the number of international sta ndards continues to increase, but that very 
little information on Members' application of these inte rnational standards is available.  On their SPS 
notifications, most Members do not provide an y details about measures which deviate from 
international standards.  Chile proposes that Members notify all changes to their SPS import 
requirements, whether or not they represent a depa rture from an international standard, and provide 
more detail about the relevant sta ndard and/or about the deviation from that standard.  The Secretariat 
could then review this information, transmit it to  the ISSBs and coordinate efforts to ascertain the 
level of use and departures from international standards. 
8. Colombia  argues that the Committee should give priority to its relationship with the ISSBs,  
especially regarding administrative procedures, since technical and scientific procedures are the 
domain of the ISSBs. 
9. In its submission on the work programme, New Zealand  suggests that the Committee should 
give high priority to discussing the distinct yet complementary roles of the Committee and the ISSBs with a view to avoiding overlaps and unnecessary d uplication of efforts. In New Zealand's view, the 
Committee should refer technical and scientific matter s pertaining to the practical application of the 
Agreement (in particular related to  international standards) to the relevant ISSBs, which can then 
report back to the Committee if necessary.  Ne w Zealand suggests that it would be useful for 
Members if the ISSBs articulated their respective ma ndates, including their interest in and ability to 
develop procedural guidelines, and if the WTO a nd ISSB secretariats discussed their roles in the 
administration of the SPS Agreement and clarified them. 
10. In its second, more specific paper, after an alyzing the respective roles of the SPS Committee 
and of the ISSBs, New Zealand  proposes that the SPS Committee consider mechanisms to promote 
effective collaboration with the st andard-setting bodies in the impl ementation and administration of 
the SPS Agreement, while avoiding unnecessary dupli cation of effort.  New Zealand further suggests 
that the SPS Committee discuss the optimal process  for effective collaboration and communication 
between the SPS Committee and the ISSBs. In this re gard, New Zealand raises a number of questions 
for discussion. 
C. 
UNDUE DELAYS  
Date Member Title/Subject Symbol 
January 
2006 Brazil Prioritization of Issues for the Future Work 
Programme of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/182 
June 2006 Chile Undu e Delays G/SPS/W/202 
March 
2006 Colombia Priority Topics to be Taken into Account in the 
Future Work of the Committee G/SPS/W/188 
June 2006 Colombia Proposal for Preventing Undue Delays in the 
Entry of Animals, Plants and their Products G/SPS/W/201 
November 
2005 Costa Rica Prioritization of I ssues for the Future Work 
Programme of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/180 G/SPS/GEN/722 
Page 4  
 
   
11. Brazil  notes that undue delays are a cross-cutting issu e, affecting areas such as equivalence; 
regionalization; risk assessment; control, inspection and approval procedures; and the suspension or 
adjustment of measures when SPS conditions have changed.  The subject should therefore not be 
subsumed to the discussion of other topics. 
12. According to Chile , delays in procedures to authorize the entry of products are often not due 
to technical reasons.  In some cases, national procedures require public hearings, a process that can take up to three years.  In other cases, authorization from a political authority is required after a technical decision has been made.  In still other cases, a group of independent experts decides whether 
to authorize entry of a product, and sometimes th ese decisions cannot be appealed.  Chile suggests 
that the SPS Committee monitor delays through formal  notifications or through information provided 
at meetings, for example when delays last over tw o years after a technical decision has been made.  
Chile notes that the technical proces s itself must not take longer than required.  To avoid long delays, 
trading partners could agree bilaterally on step s, responsibilities and timeframes.  In cases where 
delays exceeded the agreed timefra mes, the Committee could be notified and the relevant ISSBs could 
be asked to comment.  The Committee should recei ve the information necessary to analyze these 
cases, develop a definition of " undue delays" and consider if pr ocedures could be recommended to 
prevent them. 
13. In its first document concerning priorities for future work, Colombia  argues that greater 
importance should be attached to the issue of undue delays since they lead to heavy economic losses.  
According to Colombia, it is important to examine situations where market access is subject to the 
completion of a risk assessment.   
14. In its second, more specific document, Colombia  proposes procedures to prevent undue 
delays.  As a first step, the exporting Member would submit a formal request to export animals, plants 
or their products to the importing Member.  Within 30 days, the importing Member would provide information on its requirements and procedures a nd indicate the approximate timeframes for each 
step.  The exporting Member would then send the required information.  Colombia proposes that 
Members notify the WTO at the beginning of this process.  Within 60 days after receipt of the 
information, the importing Member could request further information, if necessary.  If the importing Member required an on-site visit, it would so info rm the exporting Member and suggest a date for the 
visit.  The on-site visit would have to take pl ace within a period of no more than three months 
following receipt of the information.  Once the ri sk assessment procedures agreed upon by the parties 
had been carried out, the results would have to be  discussed with the exporting Member.  Within 30 
days after completion of the procedures, the impor ting Member would inform the exporting Member 
and the WTO of its decision and of the time require d before trade could begin.  Should the exporting 
Member's request be rejected, the importing Member would have to provide the technical and scientific reasons for its decision.   
15. In Costa Rica 's view, priority should be given to discussion of undue delays since this is a 
cross-cutting issue that affects ma ny mechanisms and disciplines of the Agreement.  Undue delays 
arise because of exaggerated information requireme nts; non-transparent procedures; and excessively 
long time limits for risk assessment, adoption or modification of measures and for other aspects 
related to the application of SPS measures. 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/722 
 Page 5 
 
 
  D. CONSULTATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 12.1,  USE OF GOOD OFFICES , RESOLUTION OF TRADE 
CONCERNS  
Date Member Title/Subject Symbol 
January 
2006 Brazil Prioritization of Issues for the Future Work 
Programme of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/182 
March 
2006 Colombia Priority Topics to be Taken into Account in the 
Future Work of the Committee G/SPS/W/188 
November 
2005 Costa Rica Prioritization of I ssues for the Future Work 
Programme of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/180 
January 
2006 Costa Rica Discussion Propos al for the More Effective 
Implementation of the Ad Hoc Consultations 
Mechanism within the Framework of Article 
12.2 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/183 
June 2006 Chile Proposed Differences or Clarifications 
Procedure G/SPS/W/204 
 
16. Brazil  proposes discussing the subject of specific trade concerns to improve this problem-
solving mechanism.  Colombia  believes that more time should be available for specific trade 
concerns on the agenda of SPS Committee meetings.  Colombia notes that despite attempts to resolve 
an issue by addressing it in the Committee, sometime s a satisfactory outcome cannot be reached even 
where the exporting country has provided scientific evidence. 
17. In its first paper concerning the work programme,  Costa Rica  notes that through the 
application of Article 12.2, the SPS Committee has helped  to solve trade concerns raised by Members.  
However, in Costa Rica's view  the mechanism has been under utilized because it has not been 
operationalized through established processes and pr ocedures.   Costa Rica suggests studying the 
possible alternative approaches that might derive from the application of Article 12.2 and that 
represent an opportunity to settle disputes and facilitate  trade without having to resort to the dispute 
settlement mechanism at considerable expense. 
18. In its second submission addressing the subject, Costa Rica notes that mechanisms such as 
that provided for by Article 12.2 provide an opportunity to facilitate the resolution of trade concerns 
more quickly and at lower cost than the mech anisms provided for in the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding.  Consequently, Costa Rica suggests that the Committee explore options to facilitate 
the use of Article 12.2 mechanisms by developing  procedures and timeframes that would ensure 
expeditious resolution of trade concerns.  Costa Rica identifies the following issues to be addressed: 
the usefulness of establishing timeframes for respon ding to trade concerns submitted by Members, 
and mechanisms to inform other Members of steps ta ken and of results;  the possibility of establishing 
guidelines with definite timeframes and more detail ed procedures for resorting to the good offices of 
the Committee Chairperson;  and mechanisms to facilitate the mo re active participation in the 
Committee of developing and least-developed Member s so as to improve their capacity to resolve 
trade concerns through Article 12.2. 
19. Chile  notes that several Members have proposed establishing procedures for resolving trade 
concerns.  Chile suggests that as a first step, a Memb er can ask a trading partner to explain the reasons 
for a particular measure under Article 5.8.  In addition, documents can be exchanged, possibly 
including questionnaires and replies.  If this does not  lead to an agreement, one or more bilateral 
meetings can be convened, for example in the ma rgins of the meetings of the SPS Committee.  If G/SPS/GEN/722 
Page 6  
 
  these meetings don't lead to a resolution, the co mplainant may raise the matter at an SPS Committee 
meeting under the agenda item on specific trade con cerns, possibly providing additional information 
in a Committee document.  If the problem persists , the Member concerned may seek the good offices 
of the Chairperson or of the Secretariat, info rming the Committee of any progress.  Chile also 
suggests obtaining detailed information on the disput e settlement procedures of the OIE and the IPPC, 
and on the cost of bringing a case to a WTO dispute settlement panel. 
__________